Welcome to PatsFans.com

Happy holidays to America, from GWB!

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Tunescribe, Dec 20, 2006.

  1. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,339
    Likes Received:
    251
    Ratings:
    +627 / 5 / -14

    #61 Jersey

    http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/bush-calls-for-increasing-size-of-us/20061219165909990003

    Bush Calls for Increasing Size of U.S. Military
    President Says Iraqis Will Contribute More to War in 2007

    WASHINGTON (Dec. 20) - President Bush says the U.S. needs to increase the size of Army and Marines, and says strategy and tactics in Iraq will change to meet the situation on the ground. Bush also said Wednesday that insurgents in Iraq thwarted U.S. efforts at "establishing security and stability throughout the country" in 2006.

    At a year-end news conference, Bush said the United States will "ask more of our Iraqi partners" in 2007, and he pledged to work with the new Democratic Congress, as well.
    Bush sidestepped one question - whether he would order a so-called surge of troops in Iraq as a first-step toward gaining control of the violent and chaotic situation there. "Nice try," he told a reporter who asked about his plans.
    The Baker-Hamilton Commission recommended a quick buildup of troops as part of an overall plan to arrest what it called a "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq.
    Bush also said the United States supports the creation of a unity government in Iraq.
    The president opened the question-and-answer session by conceding the obvious - things haven't gone well in Iraq, where the United States has lost more than 2,900 troops in almost four years of war, without quelling the insurgency.



    "The enemies of liberty ... carried out a deliberate strategy to foment sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia. And over the course of the year they had success," he said.
    "Their success hurt our efforts to help the Iraqis rebuild their country. They set back reconciliation and kept Iraq's unity government and our coalition from establishing security and stability throughout the country."
    Bush said Tuesday for the first time that American forces were not winning in Iraq. He also said the military would be expanded to fight a long-term battle against terrorism.
    Bush did not say the U.S. was losing the war, which began in March 2003 and has cost the lives of nearly 3,000 troops. Instead, when asked during an interview with The Washington Post whether the war was being won, the president borrowed the phrasing of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace.
    "You know, I think an interesting construct that General Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing.' There's been some very positive developments. And you take a step back and look at progress in Iraq, you say, well, it's amazing - constitutional democracy in the heart of the Middle East, which is a remarkable development in itself," he said.
    However, Bush also acknowledged the threat of sectarian violence, saying that part of the policy review for Iraq the administration has undertaken will deal with how to help the Iraqis provide for their own security.
    "And I'll come forward with a plan that will enable us to achieve that objective," he said.
    Two weeks before the November elections, which shifted control of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats, Bush asserted that "absolutely, we're winning" in Iraq. On Tuesday, he said that response was "an indication of my belief we're going to win."
    In other remarks during the Oval Office interview on Tuesday, Bush said he plans to increase the overall size of the U.S. military, which has been stretched by wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he has asked his new defense chief, Robert Gates, to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces.
    The president did not say how many troops might be added, but he said he agreed with officials in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the military is stretched too thin to deal with demands of fighting terrorism.
    "I'm inclined to believe that we do need to increase our troops - the Army, the Marines," Bush told the Post. "And I talked about this to Secretary Gates and he is going to spend some time talking to the folks in the building, come back with a recommendation to me about how to proceed forward on this idea."
    The White House said Bush's decision about expanding the size of the military was separate from his search for a new approach to the war in Iraq. "This is necessary for the long term obligations in the war on terror," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.
    Bush's comments seemed a stark departure from the views of former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who ran the Pentagon for the last six years until he was replaced Monday by Gates. Rumsfeld had long resisted calls to increase the size of the military, arguing that technological advances and organizational changes could give the Army and Marine Corps the extra capability it needed.
    Rumsfeld's critics argue that relatively small-scale but grueling wars possible in the 21st century, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, would find the U.S. facing well-hidden terrorist groups and persistent local insurgencies. Such conflicts would inevitably demand strong, sizable U.S. ground forces to keep such operations going, they say.
    Among the chorus of voices saying it is time to bolster the military's size, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker said last week that he wants to increase his service beyond its authorized strength of 512,000, though he used no figures. He warned that the Army "will break" without more troops and a heavier use of reserves.
    Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has also expressed support for increasing the size of theArmy and Marines, saying Sunday that they are "not large enough for the kinds of missions they're being asked to perform."
    Congress would have to approve the money for an increase in the size of the military, and the idea has won support in recent months from many lawmakers of both parties. Lawmakers would also find it attractive to boost the active duty force because that could reduce the reliance on local reserve units, which have been relied on heavily for Iraq and Afghanistan.
    Snow acknowledged that Bush is considering sending more troops to Iraq, an option that worries top generals because of its questionable payoff and potential backlash.
    Top generals have expressed concern that even temporarily shipping thousands of more troops would be largely ineffective in the absence of bold new political and economic steps, and that it would leave the Army and Marine Corps even thinner once the surge ended.
    They also worry that it feeds a perception that the strife and chaos in Iraq is mainly a military problem; in their view it is largely political, fed by economic distress.
    Bush said he has not yet made a decision about a new strategy for Iraq, which he is expected to announce next month. He said he was waiting for Gates to return from his expected trip to Iraq to get a firsthand look at the situation.
    "I need to talk to him when he gets back," the president said. "I've got more consultations to do with the national security team, which will be consulting with other folks. And I'm going to take my time to make sure that the policy, when it comes out, the American people will see that we ... have got a new way forward."
    Bush said his decision to increase the size of the armed forces was in response not just to the war in Iraq but to the broader struggle against Islamic extremists around the globe.
    "It is an accurate reflection that this ideological war we're in is going to last for a while and that we're going to need a military that's capable of being able to sustain our efforts and to help us achieve peace," he said.
    Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., criticized any decision to send more troops to Iraq.
    "Instead of changing course for the better, the president's plan for more troops will make matters worse in Iraq - as many generals agree," Kennedy said in a statement. "We need a political solution that brings these warring factions together and makes Iraq take responsibility for their own future."
  2. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,655
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +480 / 1 / -9

    Harry Reid wants to do the same thing so Kennedy better kick him out of his little gang.
  3. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,829
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    I hate agreeing with Harry..but


    Lots of Democrats (Kerry included) wanted to increase the military presence in Iraq. Rumsfeld was the voice in bush's ear telling him the force was the right size. I even heard Bill Kristol say on the Daily show that Rumsfeld was an utter failure, and cliam that the only thing Cheney has ever been wrong about was his praise of Rummy....y'all should check on Jon Stweart's reaction. Comedy.

    http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-Kristol.mov
  4. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    ummmmm.... yeah, didn't the Bush League lambaste Kerry for suggesting increased troop levels during the 2004 election? ... "would make us less safe" or words to that effect...

    this is the administration that is "clear" and "you always know where they stand?"
  5. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I'm not going to say it...I'm not going to say it...FLIP-FLOP!.....
    Oh crap, I said it.
  6. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    This increase doesn't have to mean a total increase of the military. How many extra ground troops can you afford to equip and pay if you make one less nuke sub or 10 less of those super fighters that are in the works? It seems as though we'll be fighting significantly weaker enemies in the future. Perhaps what we really need are less bells and whistles and more old-fashioned ground pounders. It doesn't have to lead to a draft either. If you pay the ground guys more and promote them faster, just increase the rewards that go with the job, the recruiters will find themselves much busier. Maybe the real lesson here is that its silly to attack tents with million-dollar missiles.
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,295
    Likes Received:
    127
    Ratings:
    +238 / 8 / -26

    I hope all his flip flopping leads to the need for a draft, want to see how many people get off their asses then... all the troops will be out of there in 3 months, and anyone who votes for it will get bounced out of office, impeachment proceedings will begin forthwith.
  8. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,655
    Likes Received:
    154
    Ratings:
    +480 / 1 / -9

    :singing: In this day and age if we do have a draft imagine the screwed up Army we will wind up with, Gang Bangers, Junkies, Winos, Transvestites, Men with no Penises, Suckdestites, Serial Killers, Pedophiles, Democrats, if we went to war with Iceland they would win, we would surrender.
    :bricks:
  9. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,911
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +363 / 4 / -2

    This is about military size. Rumsfeld felt that 21st century warfare would require a faster moving, rapid deployment type force with air and weapons surperiority. He felt this way because of the demise of Cold War super power USSR, the air dominated, rapid desert force moving victory in Gulf War I, the success of the air campaign in the Balkans, and the easy victory in Afghanistan. I don't think he was too far off in his assessment. The problem with his assessment, and it's current failure, is that he took his rapid force military to fight an occupational conflict. The force itself worked perfectly in during the destruction of Saddam's Iraq. The problems have come with maintaining an occupational force which this military was not set up to do. I actually think that we could use more troops because of the current situation, but that more troops won't be needed when this war is over. This is knee jerk to the current situation. I'd be of mind to think that the current situation would be a lesson in learning never to do this again. We shouldn't be invading and occupying in the future. BTW, it will take 2 years to build up the military. More spending.

    As for the change in policy. It's easily explained. Rummy is out, Gates is in. I said a year and a half ago that Rummy should go. After Abu Graib I'd have pink slipped his azz. Had they done that, maybe this change would have come sooner, and the larger force would be of use in 2007, when they could actually contribute. By the time the larger force is ready, I'd hope we were drawn down significanty already.
  10. PressCoverage

    PressCoverage Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Messages:
    8,609
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0


    yeah, and perhaps the worst soldier of all... righty bloggers and their sons... who bark for war, and insist they know everything...
  11. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    The transformation idea is a correct one...the expectation that you can fight TWAT from the sky and with satellites is an incorrect one, in addition to occupation being done this way.

    We should have known, had we stayed committed to AFG, that to fight this 21st century warfare would require a serious boosting of special ops specifically, and many more boots coming down the pipeline in general.

    Of course, what we got for our bloated investment is a bunch of overpriced high tech war toys that won't make a sh!t of difference where the rubber meets the road. All the while we sent freaking soldiers in tin cans to do patrols.

    You know it too. Rumsfeld was a first degree failure.
  12. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,911
    Likes Received:
    165
    Ratings:
    +363 / 4 / -2


    I think he was extremely successful in Afghanistan, but incredibley inept in Iraq. I'd have fired him after Abu-Graib, as that would have been the final nail in the coffin for me. I really believe he felt that Iraq was going to be a short term war. He couldn't have been more wrong. Anyone who thought that radical muslims (Al-Queda & Co.) would simply let us walk into an ME country, topple it's leadership, and install a pro-western democracy was disillusioned. He had the right idea of what a 21st century military should be (see Afghanistan), but was moronic in using that 21st century military to fight a 20th century war, and it's subsequent occupation. What's unfortunate is that the soldiers are bearing the brunt if his mistakes. Furthermore, the magnitude of that suffering could have at least been aleviated had the post war planning, or lack there of, been logically put together.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>